‘Condo residents hit by club lights”

Mr Madho Prasad Shroff’s letter, ‘Condo residents hit by club lights” (Online forum, June 26), raises the interesting issue of whether a swimming, golf or country club is liable for the tort of nuisance if the well-being of residents in an adjoining condo is adversely affected by excessive lights emanating from the club.

The Latin phrase, ’sic utera tuo ut alienam non laedas”, means that one must use one’s property in such a fashion so as not to disturb your neighbours.

Nuisance is divided into ‘public nuisance” and ‘private nuisance”, depending on the extent of the harm or annoyance.

If the harm is suffered by one or a particular group of people, it is a private nuisance. A public nuisance is one where citizens generally, or a substantial number of members of the public, are harmed or unreasonably inconvenienced.

Private nuisance is a tort where the defendant has unreasonably and substantially interfered with the plaintiff’s reasonable use and enjoyment of his land.

Such nuisance includes the malfunctioning of sewage systems, excessive noise, directing your CCTV at your neighbour’s gate or pointing your floodlights into your neighbour’s compound for an extended period of time .

A court would normally assess the reasonableness of any nuisance based on what would be found tolerable by the ordinary occupier of reasonable fortitude.

The standard is the ordinary man which means abnormal sensitivities may prevent a claim if the nuisance would not have otherwise unreasonably interfered with an ordinary occupier.

It is not necessary to prove fault on the part of the defendant. The court would weigh the inconvenience to the plaintiff against the usefulness of the defendant’s conduct under the prevailing circumstances.

In private nuisance, the interference must be substantial, not trivial. For example, the building of a hospital next to a person’s land was held not to be a nuisance. However, courts have found dust from a sawmill, noise from racing boats or even funeral parlours as nuisances to neighbours.

Nuisance is a tort of strict liability. This means that once the damages and causation have been proven, it is no defence to argue that you have taken all reasonable precautions. The remedy for a nuisance is either an injunction or monetary damages.

In our HDB estate, the lights at the basketball court are switched off at 10pm and all residents are expected to put up with the noise of bouncing balls which is deemed to be reasonable.

If the club in question has seriously interfered with the quiet enjoyment of the condo residents by the emanation of excessive lights that have gone past the boundaries of their property for an unreasonable length of time and the gravity of the harm (causing residents to suffer from insomnia) outweighs the utility of the conduct of the defendant, the plaintiff may make a claim in nuisance.

Heng Cho Choon

Source: The Straits Times, 28 June 2007